Admittedly, the superficial criticism that no independent, free-thinking individual would pledge allegiance to a flag isn’t the strongest argument, although the precise words of the pledge are “and to the republic for which it stands.” So, taking the pledge at its word, one is pledging allegiance both to the flag and the republic. And let’s face it, standing and pledging allegiance to anything is a little creepy. But, then again, it was written by a socialist.
But why nitpick?
"One Nation"
It’s really what comes next that contradicts both of the republic’s founding documents. “One nation, indivisible” is the precise opposite of the spirit of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution ("under God" wasn’t added until the 1950s).
The government in Washington, D.C., is called “the federal government.” A federal government governs a federation, not a nation. And the one persistent point of contention throughout the constitutional convention of 1787 and the ratifying conventions which followed it was fear the government created by the Constitution would become a national government rather than a federal one. Both the Federalist Papers and the Bill of Rights were written primarily to address this concern of the people of New York and the states in general, respectively.
Moreover, the whole reason for delegating specific powers to the federal government and reserving the rest to the states or people was to ensure there would not be “one nation,” but rather a federation of self-governing republics which delegated a few powers to the federal government and otherwise reserved the rest for themselves.
By the way, the Bill of Rights as originally written applied only to the federal government and not to the states. Sorry, liberals, but the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee a “separation of church and state” within the states. It was written for the opposite reason, to protect the existing state religions of the time from the federal government establishing a national one and thereby invalidating them.
And sorry, conservatives, the Second Amendment wasn’t written to keep states from banning guns. Quite the opposite. It was written to reserve the power to ban guns to the states. That’s why most states, even those established after the Bill of Rights was ratified, have clauses in their own constitutions protecting the right to keep and bear arms. They understood the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, not the states.
If there is one thing that is clear from all of the above, the Constitution did not establish “one nation.” In fact, the states only agreed to ratify it after being repeatedly promised the United States would be no such thing, allowing the states to govern themselves in radically different ways, at their discretion.
"Indivisible"
Then, there’s “indivisible.” One would think a federation born by its constituent states seceding from the nation to which they formerly belonged would make the point obvious enough. But the Declaration makes it explicit:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
It would be impossible to exercise that right—that duty, as the Declaration later calls it—if the republic were indivisible. The strictest constructionists of the time didn’t consider the nation indivisible. Thomas Jefferson didn’t threaten to send troops to New England when some of its states considered seceding upon his election. Quite the opposite. And in an 1804 letter to Joseph Priestly, he deemed a potential split in the union between “Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies” not only possible but “not very important to the happiness of either part.”
The people advocating “one nation, indivisible” in those days were big government Federalists like Hamilton, whose proposals to remake the United States into precisely that were flatly rejected in 1787.
Proponents of absolute, national rule like to quip this question was “settled” by the American Civil War. That’s like saying Polish independence was “settled” by Germany and the Soviet Union in 1939.
In fact, it is precisely the trend towards “one nation” that has caused American politics to become so rancorous, to the point of boiling over into violence, over the course of the last several decades. This continent is inhabited by a multitude of very different cultures, which can coexist peacefully if left to govern themselves. But as the “federal” government increasingly seeks to impose a one-size-fits-all legal framework over people who never agreed to give it that power, the resistance is going to get more and more strident. If there is any chance to achieve peace among America’s warring factions, a return to a more truly federal system is likely the only way.
Getting rid of the un-American pledge to the imaginary nation would be a good, symbolic start.
As a conservative I agree. I say the pledge whenever I’m at a place it’s said. But it is socialist/communist. It is not what the founders had in mind as you’ve pointed out.
This is how to destroy a country.
Whoever wrote this has obviously not read any of the available documents written by the founders. In just 1, The Federalist Papers it is pointed out exactly why the first and second ammendments are there. Your twisted description doesn’t fit the facts.
Nice try though.
OK I recognize your tilt, nedxt you will fall into the Articles of Confederation and all of that then into the Federalist non federalist mosh pit culminating with Lincoln and using the Articles to hold the States in the union ...and on and on
Some Dr. Rivera or other name has been pushing this rock uphill trying to set the stage for California to secede or divide itself and all kinds of other mischief an non sense
Define the difference between a Nation and United States Rey Rey
On this day in 1776, the Continental Congress formally declares the name of the new nation to be the “United States” of America. This replaced the term “United Colonies,” which had been in general use.
In the Congressional declaration dated September 9, 1776, the delegates wrote, “That in all continental commissions, and other instruments, where, heretofore, the words ‘United Colonies’ have been used, the stile be altered for the future to the “United States.”
A resolution by Richard Henry Lee, which had been presented to Congress on June 7 and approved on July 2, 1776, issued the resolve, “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States….” As a result, John Adams thought July 2 would be celebrated as “the most memorable epoch in the history of America.” Instead, the day has been largely forgotten in favor of July 4, when Jefferson’s edited Declaration of Independence was adopted. That document also states, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES.” However, Lee began with the line, while Jefferson saved it for the middle of his closing paragraph.
By September, the Declaration of Independence had been drafted, signed, printed and sent to Great Britain. What Congress had declared to be true on paper in July was clearly the case in practice, as Patriot blood was spilled against the British on the battlefields of Boston, Montreal, Quebec and New York. Congress had created a country from a cluster of colonies and the nation’s new name reflected that reality.
And in 1789 the Constitution was ratified and the AOC passed into history
I have refused to recite it for years for exactly this reason.
Oh by the way....it was written in the late 19th century by a New England Christian SOCIALIST.
The whole indivisible part is indeed not what the Founders intended. They themselves were after all, secessionists who believed government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed and when a government lost that consent, the had a right to overthrow or separate themselves from that government.
Whoever wrote this is mixing up very different ideas of federalism and secession. Assuming that federalism and limited government mean that one can opt out of the country at any time for any reason isn't likely to produce "peace among America's warring factions." Thinking of one's country as a patchwork of different autonomous cultures is not the recipe for peaceful coexistence that he thinks it is. Without some idea of national unity -- and that does not mean national uniformity or total homogeneity -- the whole country could well fall apart.
Bull flipping squat.
That is all.
rey
I don’t know you, but if I met you I probably wouldn’t like you. (Who knows?)
Are you a Lawyer? Debater?
(Those folks that are Lawyers or Debaters routinely can argue opposite of anything placed before them, as they tend to not have any core beliefs, it has been theorized that they also do not possess a Soul and that is why they can suspend reality and embrace and defend the absurd with a displayed/portrayed appearance of 100% conviction and agreement)
Stinking Troll Alert!
It would be better to start the day with a prayer.
So you are obviously opposed to the National Anthem because it includes the following:
Blessed with victory and peace, may this heaven-rescued land
Bless the power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
(emphasis added)
I suppose that disagreeing with those who burn the flag or take a knee to protest the greatest nation on God's green earth is also un-American.
18 years on FR and you come up with this crap?
Ping ping ping
Ping ping ping